When a foreign company takes over a Canadian company, it often must first make undertakings to Industry Canada to ensure that the acquisition will be a net profit to the country. Currently, these undertakings are confidential under the Investment Canada Act. I believe Canadians have the right to know what commitments a foreign company has made when it takes over a Canadian company, especially when it concerns our natural resources.

The bill would allow any Canadian citizen the right to request that these undertakings be made public. In light of recent events with Xstrata, Vale Inco and U.S. Steel, it is time for Parliament to introduce transparency and accountability to foreign takeover agreements.

This bill among other things would: require the Minister of Industry to consult with representatives of industry and labour, provincial and local authorities, and other interested persons in exercising their powers under the Investment Canada Act; lower the threshold for ministerial review to $100 million; invite submissions from interested parties; require sureties from non-Canadian investors; broaden the minister's consideration when evaluating net benefits; eliminate the prohibition against communications of information related to the investment; and extend the timetable for review from 45 to 90 days.

In other words, this bill would strengthen the Investment Canada Act to protect workers and their communities, something the Conservative government and previous Liberal governments have refused to do.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I am hopeful there will be unanimous consent for the following motion. I move, seconded by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, “That a take note debate on the subject of the ongoing violence and vicious attacks against Coptic Christians in Egypt and their institutions, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 take place on Tuesday, October 25, 2011”.

With regard to the VIA Rail Guildwood Station: (a) what is the status on the decision to cut services; (b) when will this decision be made; (c) how many passengers frequent Guildwood station daily; (d) how many people are employed at Guildwood Station; (e) what criteria are being examined in the review of efficiencies in the passenger rail network; and (f) what is the government’s reason for considering to cut services at Guildwood Station?

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), VIA systematically reviews its operations to ensure that it carries out its business in the most efficient way possible. Stations are regularly reviewed to ensure that the station personnel matches the demand at the stations. This will result in an increase in personnel at a specific station or a decrease in personnel. Currently there are no plans to close Guildwood Station.

With regard to (b), there are no plans to close Guildwood Station or reduce the services available at that stop at this time.

With regard to (c), in 2010, 37,686 passengers either got on or got off at Guildwood Station, or an average of 103 passengers per day.

With regard to (d), currently two full-time employees and one part-time employee work at Guildwood Station.

With regard to (e), when reviewing efficiencies in the passenger rail network, VIA's objective is to eliminate activities that do not add value for customers. VIA constantly reviews its personnel assigned to stations to ensure that the service matches demand.

With regard to (f), as a crown corporation, VIA is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company. In its review of operating expenses, the corporation may decide to change a feature of its operations such as station stops. VIA then brings the proposed change to the minister for approval. No request was made by VIA to close the Guildwood station.

With respect to corporate tax revenue: (a) for each fiscal year from 1990-1991 to 2010-2011, what were the annual corporate tax revenues projected to be collected by the federal government in budgetary forecasting for one, two and three years in advance, broken down by year; (b) for each fiscal year from 1990-1991 to 2010-2011, what were the annual corporate tax revenues projected to be collected by each provincial and territorial government in budgetary forecasting for one, two and three years in advance, broken down by year and by province and territory; (c) for each fiscal year from 1990-1991 to 2010-2011, what were the annual corporate tax revenues actually collected by the federal government, broken down by year; (d) for each fiscal year from 1990-1991 to 2010-2011, what were the annual corporate tax revenues actually collected by each provincial and territorial government, broken down by year; (e) for each fiscal year from 1990-1991 to 2010-2011, what was the difference between projected and collected corporate tax revenues for the federal government and for each province and territory, broken down by year, and expressed as both a dollar figure and a percentage of projected revenue; (f) for the corporate tax revenue projections for the province of British Columbia for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014, what adjustments were made to those projections between August 2010 and October 2010; and (g) what new information, new data, or new modeling was received or used that resulted in adjustments to the corporate tax revenue projections for the province of British Columbia between August 2010 and October 2010 for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014?

With respect to the federal funding for Child Advocacy Centres announced in October 2010: (a) does the funding for this initiative come from an existing fund or is it a new initiative with new funding; (b) what are the criteria by which applications to receive funding under this initiative will be evaluated; (c) how many applications for funding under this initiative have been received, broken down by month received, location of project and name of applicant; (d) how many applications for funding under this initiative have been approved, broken down by date approved, location of project and name of applicant; (e) how many applications for funding under this initiative have been rejected, broken down by date rejected, location of project and name of applicant; (f) is there a prescribed limit to the amount of funds that can be disbursed under this initiative within a single fiscal year; (g) is there a prescribed limit to the amount of funds that can be disbursed to a single applicant or project; (h) what happens to this initiative once the $5.25 million has been fully assigned; (i) what will happen to the funding once the five year commitment comes to an end; (j) what factors or circumstances changed between the time of the requests made by former Victims Ombudsman Steve Sullivan to include funding for Child Advocacy Centres in Budget 2009 and Budget 2010 and the time the government announced funding in October 2010; (k) what existing programs or initiatives may have their funding or potential funding reduced or eliminated as a result of the announced funding for Child Advocacy Centres; (l) what specific branch, department or agency is responsible for administering the funding for Child Advocacy Centres; and (m) what is the legislative basis for this funding?